Books Outside the Bible

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Human Traditions Nullify the Word of God (by Brian Schwertley)

Having noted how papal apologists completely redefine the word “tradition” (when used in a positive sense) to suit their own corrupt presuppositions, we will now turn our attention tothe Bible’s unequivocal condemnation of tradition as a source of authority. This examination will involve a refutation of Romanist attempts to refute the standard Reformed Protestant use of the anti-tradition texts.

In the whole Bible there was no greater opponent of human traditions in the religious sphere than Jesus Christ Himself. In the sermon of the mount our Lord spends a great deal of time refuting Pharisaical additions to the Law of Moses (Mt. 5:17-48). There were also direct confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders over their additions to written revelation. In these confrontations our Lord strongly condemned tradition as a rule for religious authority and exalted the Word of God. “The Pharisees and Scribes asked him, ‘Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients...?’ But answering he said to them, ‘...in vain do theyworship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men. For letting go the commandment of God,you hold fast the tradition of men....Well do you nullify the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition....You make void the commandment of God by your tradition’” (Mk.7:5-13 DB).

Roman Catholic apologists understand that Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:5-13 are often used proof texts against their position and thus offer two arguments against the standard Protestant interpretation of these passages. One argument is that these passages need to be interpreted in light of the other New Testament passages that praise apostolic tradition (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15). The problem with this argument (as noted in the previous section) is that the New Testament defines positive tradition as direct, face-to-face, personal instructions by an inspired apostle. Thus, these positive passages have nothing to do with developments in theology after the death of the apostles that are not directly rooted in a historical, grammatical exegesis of Scripture.

Another Romanist argument is that Jesus only condemned bad traditions that are used to nullify the clear teaching of Scripture. Papal apologists support this assertion by an appeal to the immediate context in Matthew’s account where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for using a man made commandment to avoid supporting their aged parents (cf. Mt. 15:5-6; Ex. 20:12). While it is true that our Lord’s example does show how a tradition can be used to make void the Word of God, this point does not mean that we can completely ignore verse 2 or the original confrontation that elicited Jesus’ response in verses 3 to 9. This whole section of Scripture begins with Christ condemning the most innocent-looking and apparently harmless human tradition ever invented by man– religious hand washings. How does washing one’s hands contradict, violate or explicitly set aside God’s word? The point our Lord is making is that when religious leaders have legislative authority to make up their own religious rules or regulations without authorization from Scripture (i.e., without biblical proof by direct commandment or logical inference), God’s Word will be hidden or rendered irrelevant by a growing mass of human traditions. Thus, an appeal to antiquity, or the post apostolic church fathers, or commonly accepted traditions, or even church councils without also supplying biblical proof rooted in an historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture is not enough to establish a doctrine or religious practice in Christ’s church. It was not enough for Jesus and the apostles and it must never be enough for us, His followers.

Our Lord’s words and actions in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 cannot be exegetically circumvented by Romanist apologists. It is crystal clear from these sections of Scripture that Christ and the apostles would never countenance or participate in the ever-growing catalogue of Roman Catholic traditions that have nothing to do with the Bible (e.g., the sign of the cross, holy water, the mass, prayer and/or worship to saints and the virgin Mary, pilgrimages, the use of relics, holy sites, the adoration of the host, priestly vestments, the title “Father” for ministers,celibacy, the confessional, the hierarchy of bishops, the papacy, apostolic succession, the immaculate conception of Mary, etc.).

The apostle Paul also condemns man-made doctrine and commandments. “Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ....If you have died with Christ to the elements of the world, why, as if still living in the world, do you lay down the rules: ‘Do not touch; nor taste; nor handle!’ – things that must all perish in their very use? In this you follow‘the precepts and doctrines of men,’ which, to be sure, have a show of wisdom in superstition and self-abasement and hard treatment of the body, but are not to be held in esteem, and lead to the full gratification of the flesh” (Col. 2:8, 20-23).

Note that the apostle’s condemnation of philosophy that is according to the tradition of men is universal. This teaching means that Christians must reject both the use of non-Christian systems of philosophy to formulate aspects of Christian doctrine (e.g., Thomas Aquinas’ dependence on Aristotle’s thinking) and the syncretism of biblical doctrine with heathen ideas, ethics and customs. Romanism is a very syncretistic religion (e.g., celibacy – neo-Platonism; Christmas – Saturnalia; Mariolatry –goddess worship; statue worship – rank heathenism; Easter – fertility cults, etc.).
 
Last edited:

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Human Tradition Nullifies the Word of God, continued (by Brian Schwertley)

Scripture condemns all human traditions because of man’s sinful heart, which is drawn to human autonomy and consequently makes human traditions more important than the Bible itself. Thus, traditions supplant the Word of God and become the ultimate standard by which the Scriptures are interpreted and judged. This sad reality explains why the Pharisees in practiceregarded their traditions as more important than the Old Testament. It also explains why Romanist apologists do not attempt to alter or redefine their traditions to harmonize them with the Bible. Instead, the Bible is always reinterpreted so as not to contradict Roman Catholic additions to Scripture.

Note the following examples:
-The Bible indicates that all of the apostles were married except for Paul (1 Cor. 9:5) but Rome teaches the celibacy of the priesthood.

-Scripture teaches that after the birth of Jesus, Mary had normal conjugal relations with Joseph and bore other children (Mt. 1:25; 13:55-56; Ac. 1:14) but the papal church teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary.

-The Bible teaches us to confess our sins directly to God (1 Jn. 1:9) while Romanism requires confession to a priest.

-God’s word says that Christians are justified by faith apart fromthe works of the law (Rom. 3:20), yet papalism teaches salvation by faith plus our own good works or human merit.

-The Scriptures say that there is only one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). Romanism, however, advocates a whole host of mediators between man and God (e.g., Mary and the saints).

-Our Lord said call no man father (Mt. 23:9), yet Roman Catholic priests have taken unto themselves this forbidden religious title.

-The law of God explicitly teaches that God’s people must never bow down to or serve statues (Ex. 20:4-5; Ac. 10:25-26; Rev. 19:10). Yet Romanists are encouraged to bow down to, serve and even kiss religious statues of Jesus, Mary and the saints.

One could multiply examples where papal doctrine and practice has explicitly contradicted and nullified the teaching of God’s holy word. Roman Catholic doctrine overturns the teaching of Scripture at several key points. It is obvious from both the biblical and historical evidence that the Romanist doctrine of an authoritative tradition is merely a clever attempt at justifying centuries of man-made doctrines and practices.

While Romanism teaches that the Word of God is contained both in the Bible and tradition, that both are of equal authority, the bottom line is that the papal church hierarchy in practice has authority over both the Bible and tradition. It is the church hierarchy which says what the correct interpretation of Scripture is and which determines what traditions are in (i.e., are authoritative) and which are out (i.e., rejected as merely human in origin). Because the Bible is not the sole standard for doctrine and practice in the papal church but the church hierarchy is, the Roman Catholic Church is ultimately founded upon human doctrinal relativism. Not even long held Romanist traditions and practices are safe.

-At one time it was a mortal sin for a lay person to read the Bible in their native tongue13, and people were even burned at the stake by church authorities for translating and distributing Bibles. Yet, after Vatican II, the reading of the Bible in approved English versions was permitted.

-For several centuries it was a sin to conduct the Mass in the vulgar tongue (i.e., the common language of the people). Any priest who did such a thing would have been excommunicated.Yet, since the 1960’s the vulgar tongue is required.

-Both the Bible and church tradition have long approved of the death penalty for murder, yet now the college of bishops has contradicted Scripture and their own tradition to declare capital punishment inhumane....

The fact that doctrines and practices that once were authoritatively declared to be absolutely true and binding have now been set aside and changed is clear proof that the romish system is an unbiblical fraud. The Roman Catholic system may seem fairly sound to some people on paper, but in actual practice it has all the characteristics of a cult. The traditions are whatever the church says they are at any given time. But, we ask, if the traditions are simply the actual teachings of Christ and the apostles that have been handed down through history by the bishops and popes then why have traditions evolved and even changed completely?

Anyone familiar with Roman Catholic history is aware that many of the authoritative doctrinal statements made by the bishops and the popes are more reflections of what is happening in the culture of that time than they are of the mind of Christ and the apostles.

For example, in the unpluralistic, dogmatic days of the sixteenth century the “Profession of the Tridentine Faith” (1564) declared that no one could be saved without professing and truly adhering to the Roman Catholic faith (see section 12). Yet in the pluralistic, “democratic” days of the twentieth century other communions outside of the Roman Catholic fold are “means of salvation” (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 818-819). Modern Romanism even argues that people totally outside of the Christian faith can be saved and go to heaven. When the new Catholic Catechism (1994) re-explains the old expression “outside the church there is no salvation” it says, “Those who, through no fault of the own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation” (CCC. para. 847). In other words, a person who has never even heard of Jesus can be saved if they are sincere in their search for God. Such politically correct nonsense contradicts both the earlier positions of the church as well as the Bible (Jn. 14:6; Ac. 4:12; Rom. 10:9-17).
 
Last edited:

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
To be blunt, I really don't care what some Protestant scholars say the meaning of "full of grace" is. The Bible is my standard for truth, not "scholars." They and you will never convince me that this phrase means that Mary was born without original sin.

As I've already explained
, if the Catholic interpretation of this phrase were actually valid, then Jesus suffered and died in vain. IOW, if God could give Mary some special grace to make her sinless, then Jesus didn't really have to GO THROUGH HELL FOR US! Why didn't God the Father just do that for all of us and spare His Son the unbelievable agony???

You have the gaul to accuse me of defending man-made traditions? REALLY??? Here are some of the Catholic Church's man-made traditions that have absolutely no foundation in the New Testament:

  1. making the sign of the cross
  2. holy water
  3. prayer to Mary and the saints
  4. perpetual virginity of Mary
  5. Immaculate Conception of Mary
  6. giving veneration to images of Christ, Mary, and other saints
  7. pilgrimages
  8. the use of relics
  9. holy sites
  10. using the title "Father" for ministers
  11. celibacy for priests and nuns
  12. the confessional (i.e. confessing sins to a priest)
  13. the hierarchy of bishops
  14. the papacy
  15. papal infallibility
  16. The pope's "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church"
This is by no means an exhaustive list of beliefs and practices completely based on the man-made Catholic traditions, which have been used to develop erroneous interpretations of the Bible. Consider what Paul said about man-made traditions in Colossians.

Col. 2:8--Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ.
The main problem with these human traditions is that they take the place of the Bible as the standard for truth and the way we should live as Christians. You have only to look at the Pharisees to see where this fallacy takes you. They left what God had actually said in His Word and pridefully created and lived by their own ideas about what He had said. And they placed this burden on others. They completely missed the mark! Jesus was more critical of them than He was of any other group!

When human traditions become the standard for truth, we interpret the Bible based on our traditions instead of judging our traditions based on what God actually said in the Bible. That's why the Catholic interpretations sound so bizarre. As someone who has studied the Bible on my own for many years, I can hardly wrap my mind around the twisted interpretations of Scripture that have been posted by Catholics in this thread. It has truly been an eye-opener for me!

Basing beliefs on man's traditions is the making of man-made religion
! And sadly, this practice makes Christianity seem like every other religion in the world instead of being the source of absolute truth and salvation that it is.

Helen, this one's for you--in my own words!
Perhaps YOU could tell me the Biblical origins of the following PROTESTANT traditions of men . . .

- Sola Scriptura
- Sola Fide
- The necessity of “Accepting Jesus as Personal Lord and Savior”
- “Altar Calls”
- Double Predestination
- Pre-Trib “Rapture”
- Infant “Dedications”
- All revelation ceased after the apostolic age
- Sunday School
- Grape Juice instead of wine at the Lord’ Supper
- Rejection of the Real Presence
- The 66-Book Canon of Scripture
- Immersion Only Baptism

Your hypocrisy is disgusting . . .
 

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Perhaps YOU could tell me the Biblical origins of the following PROTESTANT traditions of men . . .

- Sola Scriptura
- Sola Fide
- The necessity of “Accepting Jesus as Personal Lord and Savior”
- “Altar Calls”
- Double Predestination
- Pre-Trib “Rapture”
- Infant “Dedications”
- All revelation ceased after the apostolic age
- Sunday School
- Grape Juice instead of wine at the Lord’ Supper
- Rejection of the Real Presence
- The 66-Book Canon of Scripture
- Immersion Only Baptism

Your hypocrisy is disgusting . . .


BoL, I've never called anything about you "disgusting!"

I don't base my interpretation of Scripture on any doctrine or practice you listed there, except sola Scriptura and the need for personal salvation by grace through faith (alone), which are foundational Bible doctrines. Protestants use various terms to talk about our beliefs. Just because a phrase like "accepting Jesus as your personal Savior and Lord" doesn't appear verbatim in Scripture, that doesn't mean it's unscriptural.

Denominational doctrine is generally not viewed as Catholic dogma is. Every Catholic MUST believe every Catholic dogma, or else! But I've never been told in a church that I had to believe every denominational doctrine exactly as that church does, or else. If a pastor or other church leader ever told me this, I would leave that church!

Protestants emphasize various aspects of Bible doctrine. I've given this example before. While Presbyterians emphasize predestination, Methodists emphasize free will. Both of these doctrines are clearly represented in the Bible and are two sides of the same coin, but one side of the coin is emphasized over the other.

This is very different from using man's unbiblical traditions (like Immaculate Conception) to interpret the Bible, which is exactly what I've seen you doing! It's obvious that Catholic doctrine is the lens through which you view the Bible, not vice versa. Have you ever studied the Bible alone (sola Scriptura) on your own, apart from any church doctrine, for long stretches of time (i.e. years)??? I have!!! This is not a rhetorical question. I would really like an answer from you.
 
Last edited:

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BoL, I've never called anything about you "disgusting!"

I don't base my interpretation of Scripture on any doctrine or practice you listed there, except sola Scriptura and the need for personal salvation by grace through faith (alone), which are foundational Bible doctrines. Protestants use various terms to talk about our beliefs. Just because a phrase like "accepting Jesus as your personal Savior and Lord" doesn't appear verbatim in Scripture, that doesn't mean it's unscriptural.

Denominational doctrine is generally not viewed as Catholic dogma is. Every Catholic MUST believe every Catholic dogma, or else! But I've never been told in a church that I had to believe every denominational doctrine exactly as that church does, or else. If a pastor or other church leader ever told me this, I would leave that church!

Protestants emphasize various aspects of Bible doctrine. I've given this example before. While Presbyterians emphasize predestination, Methodists emphasize free will. Both of these doctrines are clearly represented in the Bible as two sides of the same coin, but one side of the coin is emphasized over the other.

This is very different from using man's unbiblical traditions (like Immaculate Conception) to interpret the Bible, which is exactly what I've seen you doing! It's obvious that Catholic doctrine is the lens through which you view the Bible, not vice versa. Have you ever studied the Bible alone (sola Scriptura) on your own for long stretches of time (i.e. years)??? I have!!! This is not a rhetorical question. I would really like an answer from you.
YOUR problem is that you are totally ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches but you insist on vomiting out your inane manure. MOST of what you listed in the post I was responding to are NOT matters of Dogma. Some are doctrinal - and some are simply matters of DISCIPLINE. If you have bothered to do your homework - you wold have known this.

YOU make the idiotic charge of "Unbiblical traditions" and that's because you are unfamiliar with Scripture.
I have given you Scriptural evidence for EVERY question about Catholic doctrine that YOU have asked of me. For the simple reason that you HATE Catholic doctrine - YOU call it "unbiblical". I have YET to see you respond with BIBLICAL PROOF for ANY of the false Protestant traditions I listed.

THAT'S why I said your hypocrisy was disgusting.
 

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
YOUR problem is that you are totally ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches but you insist on vomiting out your inane manure. MOST of what you listed in the post I was responding to are NOT matters of Dogma. Some are doctrinal - and some are simply matters of DISCIPLINE. If you have bothered to do your homework - you wold have known this.

YOU make the idiotic charge of "Unbiblical traditions" and that's because you are unfamiliar with Scripture.
I have given you Scriptural evidence for EVERY question about Catholic doctrine that YOU have asked of me. For the simple reason that you HATE Catholic doctrine - YOU call it "unbiblical". I have YET to see you respond with BIBLICAL PROOF for ANY of the false Protestant traditions I listed.

THAT'S why I said your hypocrisy was disgusting.

I pray that God will bless you and keep you in His amazing grace! I truly do!
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Human Tradition Nullifies the Word of God, continued (by Brian Schwertley)

Scripture condemns all human traditions because of man’s sinful heart, which is drawn to human autonomy and consequently makes human traditions more important than the Bible itself. Thus, traditions supplant the Word of God and become the ultimate standard by which the Scriptures are interpreted and judged. This sad reality explains why the Pharisees in practiceregarded their traditions as more important than the Old Testament. It also explains why Romanist apologists do not attempt to alter or redefine their traditions to harmonize them with the Bible. Instead, the Bible is always reinterpreted so as not to contradict Roman Catholic additions to Scripture.

Note the following examples:
-The Bible indicates that all of the apostles were married except for Paul (1 Cor. 9:5) but Rome teaches the celibacy of the priesthood.

-Scripture teaches that after the birth of Jesus, Mary had normal conjugal relations with Joseph and bore other children (Mt. 1:25; 13:55-56; Ac. 1:14) but the papal church teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary.

-The Bible teaches us to confess our sins directly to God (1 Jn. 1:9) while Romanism requires confession to a priest.

-God’s word says that Christians are justified by faith apart fromthe works of the law (Rom. 3:20), yet papalism teaches salvation by faith plus our own good works or human merit.

-The Scriptures say that there is only one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). Romanism, however, advocates a whole host of mediators between man and God (e.g., Mary and the saints).

-Our Lord said call no man father (Mt. 23:9), yet Roman Catholic priests have taken unto themselves this forbidden religious title.

-The law of God explicitly teaches that God’s people must never bow down to or serve statues (Ex. 20:4-5; Ac. 10:25-26; Rev. 19:10). Yet Romanists are encouraged to bow down to, serve and even kiss religious statues of Jesus, Mary and the saints
This manure pile is so full of holes and dishonesty - you should be ASHAMED and embarrassed for posting it.
I know that I'm embarrassed FOR you. NOT sure who this moron is but Brian Schwertley doesn't know much about the Word of God . . .

Let's start with the title "Human Tradition Nullifies the Word of God".
WHERE does he get this asinine belief?? Jesus didn't condemn tradition - but ONLY the traditions that nullified the Word of God.
In other words - He was chastising the pharisees for putting THEIR rules ABOVE God's Word. He wouldn't have had ANY problem with their traditions if they hadn't judged the people by THEM instead of by God's Law.

Your boob of an author claims, "Scripture condemns all human traditions" - and NOWHERE does Jesus even IMPLY this. If this were true - that laundry list of Protestant traditions I posted would be an abomination before God. Do YOU believe that they are??

He stupidly goes on to say that Catholics are wrong for teaching that works are an essential ELEMENT of faith (James 2:14-26) by stating that Paul teaches that we are justified by faith - APART from works of the Law. Paul isn't talking about works of faith - but works of the LAW - the MOSAIC LAW.

He goes onto claim that Mary had "other children" after Jesus - yet the Bible is SILENT about this - and he offers ZERO evidence for this false claim.

His understanding of Matt. 23 and Jesus's prohibition on calling men "Father" above our Father in Heaven is NON-EXISTENT.
Jesus DIDN'T forbid the use of this word for men on earth. He was telling the people NOT to consider men like the Pharisees their "Fathers" who were placing themselves ABOVE our Father in Heaven.
Consider the following passages:

- Jesus said, “Your FATHER Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56).
- St. Stephen refers to "our FATHER Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
- St. Paul speaks of "our FATHER Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
- For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
- Honor your FATHER and mother (Exod. 20:12).


I can go on for days but this author's ignorance is ASTOUNDING . . .
 

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I showed you that the “Armor of God” Paul describes in Heb. 6:13-17 is taken from Wis. 5:17-20.
.

What exactly do you think is in Hebrews 6:13-17??

And there is not a single verse of the NT that looks like Wis 5:17-20
Wisdom 5:17-20
17 He shall take his zeal for armor
and arm creation to requite the enemy,
18 Shall put on righteousness for a breastplate,
wear sure judgment for a helmet,
19 Shall take invincible holiness for a shield,
20 and sharpen his sudden anger for a sword.
The universe will war with him against the foolhardy;


more Bible - less making stuff up
 

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as “word of God,” “doctrine,” “holy commandment,” “faith,” and “things believed among us.” All are “delivered” and “received”:

Mark 7:6-13

7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Finally – Purgatory isn’t a “false” teaching – but a Scriptural one (2 Macc. 42-46, Matt. 5:25-26, 1 Cor. 3:12-15, Matt. 18:32-35, Luke 12:58-59).

Until you read the actual Bible and find not one reference to anyone in purgatory in Matt 5:25-26
Not one reference to anyone in purgatory in 1 Cor. 3:12-15
Not one reference to anyone in purgatory in Matt. 18:32-35, Luke 12:58-59

And after having read the actual Bible - we also find
Not one reference to anyone in purgatory in 2 Macc 42-46

In no case above do you have someone dying then being tortured/tormented before entering heaven. That doctrine is one of many that have been "made up".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prayer Warrior

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States

If Mary is sinless - do you actually believe that she achieved this state on her OWN??
She needed a Savior

oxymoron.

1. sinless people do not need a Savior from sinlessness.
2. Sinful people do. period.

The sinless angels of heaven do not refer to Christ as "their" savior from sin.


1 Mary was not sinless - Christ was her Lord and Savior
2. Mary was not born from a sinless womb of immaculate conception
3. Stephen - "full of grace" - also was not sinless
4. When someone attempted the "blessed be Mary the mother of Jesus" idea out on Jesus - His response was "ON THE CONTRARY - blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” - Luke 11:27-28

Christ Himself gave us the perfect response to that scenario
 

Mayflower

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2018
7,820
11,768
113
Bluffton
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@Mayflower: A good Bible concordance is a very useful volume for study. :)

Yeh I think I am sticking with concordance. If these other books going to be a headache, the Bible had never steered me wrong. I got lost on this discussion a long time ago. :D The Holy Spirit is who leads me into all Truth. He will show me everything I need to know. Man cannot.
 

farouk

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2009
30,790
19,230
113
North America
Yeh I think I am sticking with concordance. If these other books going to be a headache, the Bible had never steered me wrong. I got lost on this discussion a long time ago. :D The Holy Spirit is who leads me into all Truth. He will show me everything I need to know. Man cannot.
As regards the Apocryphal books, they are sometimes known as the Deuterocanonical books, and the word Deutero- canonical means, outside the canon of Scripture.

Old versions of the King James used to be printed with the Apocrypha (the Protestant Apocrypha was even bigger than the Roman Catholic Apocrypha); this inclusion was because of the influence of the Anglican Church (King James himself was head of the Anglican Communion).

But for the past 2 centuries, the King James has for the most part been printed without the Apocrypha.

(A bit of history...)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mayflower

Mayflower

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2018
7,820
11,768
113
Bluffton
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As regards the Apocryphal books, they are sometimes known as the Deuterocanonical books, and the word Deutero- canonical means, outside the canon of Scripture.

Old versions of the King James used to be printed with the Apocrypha (the Protestant Apocrypha was even bigger than the Roman Catholic Apocrypha); this inclusion was because of the influence of the Anglican Church (King James himself was head of the Anglican Communion).

But for the past 2 centuries, the King James has for the most part been printed without the Apocrypha.

(A bit of history...)

I trust the reliability of The Holy Bible. I just question Canon and how we can be sure what parts to really focus on. If there are other books of Canon left out. I am interested in Spiritual Growth and in Truth. The Bible provides both of these for me. But like the extended book of Esther. That inspired me in hearing a queen's prayer. It is just not being lead astray by false information or uninspired work in these other books. This is why I question.

Ill live the Word first, and trust the Holy Spirit's guidance to lead me in all Truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prayer Warrior

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
hint: Catholic Digest is not "An SDA publication" --
hint: the Oxford dictionary is not "an SDA publication"
hint: Fordham is a Jesuit university - not an SDA one.
There is no quote of SDA anything in my post.

Emotional response alone will not prove compelling. .Post a fact.

We are talking about historic fact. Your argument seems to be that history will change given sufficient emotional response in your post.

What is the thinking there??
You use "sources" that cannot be checked, so you can make your "sources" say anything you want. It's dishonest. You give no context. Your so called "sources" are not SDA publications, but you copy their dishonest methods. If you are going to site "Catholic sources", everything taught is available on line so provide a link to sources where context is available for all to see. Your sneakiness is appalling.
Citing snippets from biased anti-Catholic books, or manipulated snippets from alleged "Catholic sources" is not historical fact, it's hate propaganda.

You can't meet my challenge of providing scholarly sources for your "history", because history is your enemy.
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
As regards the Apocryphal books, they are sometimes known as the Deuterocanonical books, and the word Deutero- canonical means, outside the canon of Scripture.

Old versions of the King James used to be printed with the Apocrypha (the Protestant Apocrypha was even bigger than the Roman Catholic Apocrypha); this inclusion was because of the influence of the Anglican Church (King James himself was head of the Anglican Communion).

But for the past 2 centuries, the King James has for the most part been printed without the Apocrypha.

(A bit of history...)
Here is a bit of history. Find a 66 book codex printed/copied/or used before the 14th century. I'll save you a lot of research; it doesn't exist.

Deuterocanonical books, and the word Deutero- canonical means, outside the canon of Scripture.
NO, IT DOES NOT. Changing the meaning was a reformist invention.
 

farouk

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2009
30,790
19,230
113
North America
Here is a bit of history. Find a 66 book codex printed/copied/or used before the 14th century. I'll save you a lot of research; it doesn't exist.
On the whole evangelical Protestants have gone back to Scripture, not to tradition; hence the pursuit of Scripture as opposed to the Deuterocanonical books which even by their name means outside the canon of Scripture.

I'm not into pursuing arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prayer Warrior

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
On the whole evangelical Protestants have gone back to Scripture, not to tradition
And it is Christ Himself who confirmed and established the OT canon while EXCLUDING the non-canonical books. According to God this is the Hebrew canon (which corresponds to our Old Testament):
Torah = the Law of Moses = 5 books
Nebiim = the Prophets = 8 books
Kethubim = the Psalms = 11 books
TOTAL = 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh.
 
Last edited:

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
To be blunt, I really don't care what some Protestant scholars say the meaning of "full of grace" is. The Bible is my standard for truth, not "scholars." They and you will never convince me that this phrase means that Mary was born without original sin.

As I've already explained
, if the Catholic interpretation of this phrase were actually valid, then Jesus suffered and died in vain. IOW, if God could give Mary some special grace to make her sinless, then Jesus didn't really have to GO THROUGH HELL FOR US! Why didn't God the Father just do that for all of us and spare His Son the unbelievable agony???

You have the gaul to accuse me of defending man-made traditions? REALLY??? Here are some of the Catholic Church's man-made traditions that have absolutely no foundation in the New Testament:

  1. making the sign of the cross
  2. holy water
  3. prayer to Mary and the saints
  4. perpetual virginity of Mary
  5. Immaculate Conception of Mary
  6. giving veneration to images of Christ, Mary, and other saints
  7. pilgrimages
  8. the use of relics
  9. holy sites
  10. using the title "Father" for ministers
  11. celibacy for priests and nuns
  12. the confessional (i.e. confessing sins to a priest)
  13. the hierarchy of bishops
  14. the papacy
  15. papal infallibility
  16. The pope's "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church"
This is by no means an exhaustive list of beliefs and practices completely based on the man-made Catholic traditions, which have been used to develop erroneous interpretations of the Bible. Consider what Paul said about man-made traditions in Colossians.

Col. 2:8--Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ.
The main problem with these human traditions is that they take the place of the Bible as the standard for truth and the way we should live as Christians. You have only to look at the Pharisees to see where this fallacy takes you. They left what God had actually said in His Word and pridefully created and lived by their own ideas about what He had said. And they placed this burden on others. They completely missed the mark! Jesus was more critical of them than He was of any other group!

When human traditions become the standard for truth, we interpret the Bible based on our traditions instead of judging our traditions based on what God actually said in the Bible. That's why the Catholic interpretations sound so bizarre. As someone who has studied the Bible on my own for many years, I can hardly wrap my mind around the twisted interpretations of Scripture that have been posted by Catholics in this thread. It has truly been an eye-opener for me!

Basing beliefs on man's traditions is the making of man-made religion
! And sadly, this practice makes Christianity seem like every other religion in the world instead of being the source of absolute truth and salvation that it is.

Helen, this one's for you--in my own words! :)

The shot gun tactic just proves you have been refuted. Making long lists of terms you have no hope of understanding, and don't care. Your anti-tradition nonsense has been demolished in post #551 and 552. Everybody knows there are bad traditions in the Bible, but those are all you can see. You are obviously blind to the good traditions listed, and bad traditions don't eclipse good traditions. Your war on all traditions as being bad is not biblical. Your anti-Catholic lies are too numerous to count.
 
Last edited: